Letter
27/VI 99.

I received your letter of 2/VI last Friday, the 18th, but I have not received either Mehring or Karelina, which you wrote that you were sending.*) I waited at first, thinking there was a postal delay, but now I must assume that the package is either lost or you postponed sending it. If the former is true, please submit a declaration without delay.

Your review of my book has gladdened me greatly. Still, I think regarding its translation you may have somewhat exaggerated: it is doubtful that the Germans would read something crammed full of purely local, so to speak, and petty facts.2) True, N.—he did translate it (but he already had a very large reputation and probably Engels's recommendation, although the latter intended to tear it apart, according to the Monist).3) Have you encountered reviews of it in German literature? If I'm not mistaken, it was also translated into French. I was somewhat surprised by your words that you "finally managed to obtain" my book.... Didn't you receive it from Moscow or Petersburg? I asked them to send it to you, as with all my other acquaintances, and they all received it. If you didn't receive it, let me know, and I'll write to Moscow again.

I have not yet seen reviews of it in print, and I don't expect to find any before autumn—besides, I only read the "Russ[ian] Gazettes[,]" which continue "with tact to remain silent"....

I read Bulgakov's article in the Archive.4) I do not intend to write a response to him even for the German public: first, because I cannot write in German; second—and this is the main point, because finding a translator from Russian might be possible—a article in the spirit in which I wrote for the Russian public is completely unsuitable for the German public, i.e., with a detailed exposition of Kautsky's book.

I cannot answer Bulgakov's special references (based on German statistics) because I don't have the materials. As for his general viewpoint (Kantian and... Bernsteinian, if one may so express it), I also won't undertake to write for the Germans. I think it is indeed necessary to correct the Germans' understanding of Russian disciples, but for this (if no one else undertook to write a special article) a simple note about my article against Bulgakov would suffice, when that article appears in a Russian journal. But if it doesn't appear at all... after the death of "Nachalo" and the refusal of ("Life" or censorship...then the matter would take on a substantially different character.5)

Regarding the "breathtakingly original discoveries" of Russian disciples and their neo-Kantianism, I find myself in ever-growing indignation. I read Tugan-Baranovsk's article in No. 5 of "Scientific Review".... Good God, what foolish and pretentious nonsense! Without any historical study of Marx's doctrine, without any new research, on the basis of errors in schemes (arbitrary alteration of the norm of surplus value), on the basis of elevating the most exceptional case to a universal rule (increase in labor productivity without decrease in the value of the product: an absurdity if taken as a general phenomenon), on this basis to announce a "new theory," an error of Marx, a restructuring....6) No, I cannot believe your report that Tugan-Baranovsk is becoming ever more of a Genosse.7) Mikhailovsky was right in calling him an "echo man": his little article in "World of God"8) ("according to Beltov," remember? in '95) and this article confirm such a harsh assessment from a biased critic. This is confirmed as well by what I heard about his personal qualities from you and from Nadia.9) Of course, all of this is insufficient for a final conclusion and I may very well be mistaken. It will be interesting to know your opinion of his article.

Yes, and then there is this idea of distinguishing "sociological" and "economic" categories, launched by Struve (in No. 1 of "Scientific Review") and repeated by P. Berlin (in "Life") and Tugan-Baranovsk.10) In my view, it promises nothing but the most contentless and scholastic play with definitions, called by Kantians by the high-sounding name of "critique of concepts" or even "epistemology." I categorically do not understand what meaning such a distinction could have? How can the economic exist outside the social??

V. I. LENIN — A. N. POTRESOV

By the way, on neo-Kantianism. Whose side are you taking? I read and reread with great pleasure the "Contributions to the History of Materialism," I read the same author's articles in Neue Zeit against Bernstein and Conrad Schmidt (in No. 5, Neue Zeit 98—99: I haven't seen further issues),11) I read the Stammler (Economics and Law) lauded by our Kantians (P. Struve and Bulgakov)12) and I decisively sided with the Monist.13) Stammler especially infuriated me, in whom I refuse to see any hint of anything fresh, substantive.... Pure epistemological scholasticism.14) Stupid "definitions" of the most ordinary jurist, in the worst sense of that word, and no less stupid "conclusions" drawn from them. After Stammler, I reread Struve's and Bulgakov's articles in "New Word,"15) and I found that neo-Kantianism really must be seriously reckoned with. I already could not restrain myself and have inserted remarks and sallies against it in my response to Struve (on his article in "Scientific Review"). Why and by whom the publication of this response is being held up, I cannot fathom. They said it would be in No. 6 of "Scientific Review." It's not there. Meanwhile my silence is already causing awkward things: for instance, Nezhdanov's article in No. 4 of "Life") and in response to Bulgakov.16) I say "could not restrain myself" because I am very well aware of my philosophical ignorance and do not intend to write on these themes until I have studied them. Now I am precisely occupied with this, having begun with Holbach and Helvétius and intending to move on to Kant. I have obtained the principal works of the principal classics of philosophy, but I don't have neo-Kantian books (I only ordered Lange). Please inform me if you have them or if your comrades do, and whether you would be willing to share them.

On the same question, I was extremely interested by a review in No. 5 of "Nachalo" (May—the journal suffering from consumption in its terminal stage) of Bogdanov's book. I cannot understand how I could have missed the announcement of this book's appearance. I only ordered it now. I already suspected the Monist from Bogdanov's first book, and the title and content of the second book strengthens my suspicions. And how unseemly—how contentless and unseemly-arrogant this review is. Not a word on the substance and... a rebuke for ignoring Kantianism, although from the reviewer's own words it is clear that Bogdanov does not ignore Kantianism, but rejects it, standing on a different philosophical viewpoint.... I think (if I haven't erred about Bogdanov) that it will be impossible to leave this review without an answer.17) I only don't understand one thing: how could Kamenskii leave without answer the articles of Struve and Bulgakov in "New Word" against Engels. Won't you explain this to me?18)

Your report about the reaction against Marxism that has begun in Petersburg was news to me. I am perplexed. "Reaction"—meaning from among the Marxists? Which ones? The same P. B. [Struve]? Is he and his circle developing a tendency toward unity with the liberals?? With great impatience I will await your clarifications. That the "critics" only confuse the public, giving nothing whatsoever—with this I fully agree, and likewise that with them (especially regarding Bernstein) a serious war will be necessary (only where will there be to fight?...) If P. B. [Struve] "completely ceases to be a Genosse," the worse for him. This will, of course, be an enormous loss for all Genossen, because he is a very talented and knowledgeable man, but of course "friendship is friendship, and duty is duty," and this does not eliminate the necessity of war. I fully understand and share your "fury" provoked by the epithet "abominable"(sic....) applied to the Monist—why for? for the sake of an article in Neue Zeit? for the sake of an open letter to Kautsky about who will bury whom? and I am very interested in his reply to your letter, pouring out this fury.20) (I still haven't seen Bernstein).21) A thorough Auseinandersetzung22) is certainly necessary, but it will not and cannot come out in "Nachalo" or "Life": there will only be individual articles against the "critics" of Marxism. What is needed for it is precisely third-rate literature and a Platform23) (if I understood you correctly). Only then, finally, will Genossen be separated off from "outsiders" and "intruders," and only then will no personal whims and theoretical "breathtakingly original discoveries" create turmoil and anarchy. The damned Russian disorganization is to blame for all of this.

How your article (I read only the 1st) on inheritance was aimed against the Petersburg people is unclear to me. I haven't seen the article "Not in Turn." Send it.

Regarding the Blitzableiter,24) I would very much like to discuss it in more detail and more thoroughly. But this will apparently have to be for another time. My term ends on 29/I 1900. If only they don't extend it—the greatest misfortune that sometimes befalls exiles in Eastern Siberia. I dream of Pskov. And what do you dream of?

Nadia sends regards. I squeeze your hand firmly.
Vladimir Ulyanov.

V. I. LENIN — A. N. POTRESOV

P. S. I just reread the end of my article against Bulgakov in draft form... and saw that my tone there is conciliatory: I am, so to speak, an "orthodox" and decisive opponent of the "critics" (I said this directly), but one shouldn't exaggerate these disagreements (as Mr. Bulgakov does) in the face of common enemies. It is quite possible that this "conciliatory" tone (I do my utmost to restrain myself and conduct polemics as a Genosse) will turn out to be misplaced or even ridiculous if expressions like... "abominable" come into play, if the "critics" provoke a final split. I would then turn out to be "guilty without guilt": having not seen Bernstein's book, not knowing all the views of the "critics," being at a "respectable distance," I was still looking (when I wrote this article) in the old way altogether, simply as a contributor to "Nachalo".... I think my assertion that the theory of class struggle was not touched by "criticism" is false?25)